Time Warner Cable Enters. LLC v Nokia of Am. Corp.

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on July 2, 2026

Index No. 650748/2022

Robert R. Reed, J.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 70, 71, 72, 79 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 73, 74, 75, 76, 78 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

WHEREAS a summons and complaint were filed on February 16, 2022 (NYSCEF doc. nos. 1); and

WHEREAS on July 1, 2022, an order to show cause was filed (motion seq. no. 001) upon an application requesting the sealing of defendant's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, two contractual agreements filed in support of defendant's motion, and the complaint (NYSCEF doc. no. 21); and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, defendant filed an application for an order to show cause (motion seq. no. 005) requesting permission to file a redacted answer to the complaint, and sealing of its unredacted answer (NYSCEF doc. no. 79); and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, plaintiff filed an application for an order to show cause (motion seq. no. 006) seeking the sealing of defendant's answer to the complaint; the same document identified in defendant's prior motion (motion seq. no. 005).

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial [*2]Courts, this court finds that the movants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate a legitimate basis for the redaction or sealing of pleadings and motion papers. There is indication that the public or press would have an interest in this matter and the public entitlement to judicial proceedings and court records is broad (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 350 [1st Dept 2010]); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908, 912 [Sup Ct 2021]).

Here, there is no showing that trade secrets are at risk of being divulged or that the motion papers and pleadings would harm a business's competitive edge (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-49 [1st Dept 2010]), as they cannot constitute proof of any relevant matter of fact. Movants' arguments regarding the "confidentiality" of the motion papers and pleadings are unavailing.

However, with respect to certain identified letter agreements and contracts, the court finds that movants have established "good cause" to restrict public access, as no substantial interest would be furthered by access to that information (Danco Labs v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant's application for an order to show cause to seal the complaint and other attendant documents (motion seq. no. 001) is granted to the limited extent of permitting the sealing of Exhibit 2 (Master Product and License Agreement dtd 7/31/2006) and Exhibit 3 (Letter Agreement dtd May 8, 2013) identified in the conformed copy of the order to show cause as NYSCEF doc. nos. 11, 12, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's application by order to show cause to seal the unredacted version of defendant's answer to the complaint with counterclaims is denied (motion seq. no. 005); and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's application by order to show cause to seal the unredacted version of defendant's answer to the complaint with counterclaims is denied (motion seq. no. 006).

DATE July 2, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.